Jimquisition: The Trap Of Gamer Gratitude

[hazydawn]

This is so true, so very true.
Yet, I've seen it happen countless times.... players being grateful to the developers for fixing game problems.

Heck, sometimes I even stumbled into topics saying "thank you for making this game!!". While I appreciate the enthusiasm, they do not deserve any thank you for making a good videogame. Because it's not like they gave it to you completely free as a gift.

Ugh, I don't know about that. I thank my hairdresser from time to time when I think they did a good job.
If you receive a service that is above average, or when people went out of their way to do something extra for you.
In the case of video games I think it's also reasonable to feel grateful if you feel that they truly let you experience something great, as video games can also be seen as art. Some time ago people used to clap profusely when their plane landed. As if to say: "Yay, thank you for not fucking up and that we're still alive." I can understand why that habit has receded so much. Because it is so very much exaggerated. But If somebody did a good job I think you should be thankful. You can't expect of every person to do fantastic work all the time. So if they went out of their way to do it for you, be grateful. And don't just presume that everybody works only for their own interest and does not think of their customer's satisfaction as well.
So what I'm trying to say is, gratitude for a job well done is ok and good but don't overdo it. Amount of gratitude dependant on how well done the job is

Don't be their *****. They're YOUR *****. They bark at your command because you have the money to offer. Thank god for Jim.

No, their not your *****. They are people trying to make a living from what they enjoy... at least some, I hope.
I think there's a certain amount of respect required on both sides even if companies should and need to work in the interest of the client.

 

[Nowhere Man]

Have we reached the point where most of the gaming community have no self respect? Or has it always been this way?

 

[Pseudonym]

I haven't paid any attention to PvZ:GW but the way Jim describes it, it sounds like a rather obvious ploy. Now I don't think gratitude is out of order all the time. (just most of the time) Recently Subset Games released an expansion for FTL for free. FTL was already fully functional and now it has more content than I bought it for, for free. That sounds like I'm being given something good that I have no claim to and so something that merits gratitude. That said, I can see why some cynisism is appropriate. Nobody, certainly, should be thankful when things they bought were broken through a fault of the people making or selling the things and were subsequently fixed. I understand why so many people are. We more or less expect to get screwed over from time to time by some big company we unfortunately have to deal with and when one of these companies decides not to then spit in our faces for complaining we feel grateful. But, broadening the scope, that is an outrageous state of affairs to begin with. And even if the people at these companies take their responsibilities once in a while, at least in some cases this needs to be justified to the other stakeholders through some notion of 'building goodwill' or 'consumer loyalty' rather than just doing the decent thing because it is the decent thing to do.

 

[JLF]

Thank god for Jim Sterling and rational thought. Thank you!

 

[Ukomba]

Mass Effect 3 was on the edge of this. The game avoided the single player micro transactions that infested dead space 3, and the one's in single player were mostly harmless. They are what paid for the free multiplier dlc and events even. People complained then, but in retrospect, I think me3 shows one of the best version's of micro transactions along with tf2.

 

[otakon17]

They don't deserve your gratitude. You don't give them money to thank them. They should be thanking you for buying their products. They should be grateful every time you shell out some of your hard-earned cash to play their game. They don't own you. They don't give you pennies from heaven. They're here to do a job, and you're the one that ultimately decides if they deserve a payday. If a game is shit, you let them know. If they fix it, you tell them "and don't let it happen again." Don't be their *****. They're YOUR *****. They bark at your command because you have the money to offer. Thank god for Jim.

Well said, that was beautiful. Yeah, micro-transactions to unlock existing material in a game that forces you to grind to get access to it ALONG with it being $30-$40 bucks is just despicable. Dammit though, I REALLY want to get Inquisition when it comes out.

 

[otakon17]

Mass Effect 3 was on the edge of this. The game avoided the single player micro transactions that infested dead space 3, and the one's in single player were mostly harmless. They are what paid for the free multiplier dlc and events even. People complained then, but in retrospect, I think me3 shows one of the best version's of micro transactions along with tf2.

I wish that they would have implemented direct buying over a random "booster" pack if I'm shelling out REAL money for a virtual item. It's gambling, pure and simple and even with spare points I never bought anything in the MP store because I didn't want to gamble.

 

[xGrimReaperzZ]

The issue is unfortunately not only with the gaming culture, it seems to be a thing with most people, people forget the original issues and the original causes after you lure them with another "perfumed" solution, another "option".

I, personally have many friends whom happen to play Fifa's ultimate team crap and they love the ability to buy players, to skip the game, to bypass the wall of grind, and when i tell them that the whole thing is another contrived way for EA to take more money some of them deny it and some even say that they know, but you know what? they don't care..

Yet they're glad that EA gave them an option to bypass the game, they fail to realize that the whole game was made for them to continue paying, rather than playing

 

[Elyxard]

I was worried about this becoming a trend. If GTAV shipped with its broken multiplayer on release, it most assuredly would have tanked all of its review scores. I'm not saying this was a conscious decision on Rockstar's part, but it seems like they've inspired the industry to hold off on bad, predatory features on launch so that their review scores will be higher. I am not surprised at all that EA is the first to do this on purpose.

And remember, most of us actually are sensible enough to avoid micro-transactions; the people who these micro-transactions are for are the ones with gambling addictions or similar mental illnesses. EA deserves no praise.

 

[MegaGame]

Even worse is the idea that we should want to decrease the amount of time we spend playing a game we paid for. Shouldn't we instead buy missions, map packs etc that increase our playing time? More money = more hours of fun?

now that is just crazy talk, why make stuff that cost money to make and that people may actual want to buy, insted just make them buy stuff that cost no real money to make.

This is the way f2p works, make some/few people pay alot for stuff that cost almost nothing to make, and use that money to make stuff that cost moeny, and give that away for free. That way you only have a small part of the people thinking it cost alot to play the game, but have all the people who spent little money on game, together with the freeloaders, think you are the best becouse you give away free stuff.

 

[SnakeoilSage]

Well that's taking it a bit far. The ideal relationship between a content creator and a content consumer is a relationship of mutual benefit and respect. Ideally we should be thanking them for creating great games and they should be thanking us for buying them. This promotes a strong dialog between the two parties that will result in a net gain for everyone. If we don't acknowledge and appropriately reward behavior we like (not only with a purchase but by vocalizing our satisfaction, consumer loyalty, and spreading the word) then there is no reason for companies to behave in a way we want. You should be thankful, you should be loyal - but only when a content creator deserves it.

If our relationship with content creators is based purely on financial transaction how can we expect them to do anything but base all their decisions purely on financial gain?

[Edited for content]

I know I sound harsh. But the antics of developers these days has made me very slow to trust.

 

[Grace_Omega]

OMFG at the end I was just thinking "Jim is starting to sound like Littlefinger."

AND THEN THE ACCENT STARTED

 

[Citizen Graves]

I think it's something to do with Dungeons & Dragons and/or Pokémon or some other nerdy shite.

Says the guy on the gaming website forum.

And isn't that ironic?

Don't you think?

 

[Random Argument Man]

A lot of people respond to me when I apologize with "Don't apologize. Just don't do it anymore" instead of being grateful for acknowledging that I've wronged them in some way. (In minor offences). I agree with them.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

kotaku is a fucking joke, they are not even trying to speak from a gamer standpoint, they are just another tentacle of the publishers PR monster

 

[KisaiTenshi]

There's something wrong with a game design if it is both single player and has "pay to unlock" content. I may consider this in a Freemium game, but not one where you pay once for the game and then again to unlock stuff that came with it. That's like buying a car and then having to buy separate keys for the glovebox. You could just never use the glovebox, but if I knew I wasn't going to get the glovebox on this model I may opt for a different car altogether. (This is not the same reasoning as XM radio or OnStar being installed, those are third-party services.)

***Hello I'm a 30 hour RPG/FPS game that cost 70$ to buy, and I'm going to not let you finish the boss without buying the EZ-MODE switch for 5$. Once you buy this EZ-MODE switch, you'll find it useless to complete the FINAL boss, which you won't be able to win without buying the "DEUS EX MACHINA" button for 15$. Or you could spend the additional 90 hours to level grind your character and save 20$.*** I'm not buying that game in the first place if I know that's in it.

A fun game, players will buy optional content extensions that make logical sense to have. Hello, Warcraft II: Beyond the Dark Portal, circa 1996. A not-fun game however, will not have enough players buy the expansion, and thus the multiplayer possibilities are significantly reduced. Hence there is one problem introduced by expansion packs, is that those who buy the expansion packs can't play with those who haven't. We've been hearing this word a lot "Fragmentation"

The ideal way to solve the need for expansions/episodic gaming without doing EA-insane things (look at the Sims expansion packs) is to actually make the expansions the pay-to-unlock, but still update the game core to prevent fragmentation. So let's say an expansion pack adds characters, weapons, maps and missions. The map/mission is what gives the expansion pack the additional play time, while the characters/weapons do not. If you play with a friend who has bought the expansion pack, that should enable the friend to use the expansion set features with you, who haven't bought the expansion pack, thus providing incentive for you to buy it too.

On the flip side, every time I see the "crate of smurfberries" style of exchanging money for time, I run away. This is just cheating in the guise of "we intentionally make the game painfully hard/time-consuming", there is a reason why freemium game companies have been on a long-term stock slide (Look up Zynga and Nexon), players are just not willing to play their "new" games that have even worse game mechanics that are nothing but pay-to-win.

 

[Something Amyss]

I was worried about this becoming a trend. If GTAV shipped with its broken multiplayer on release, it most assuredly would have tanked all of its review scores.

Would it have affected the actual sales, though?

I bet it just would have led to more petitions to get reviewers fired.

I mean, here and elsewhere, people were effectively saying "psssh. What did you idiots expect? Working multiplayer on day one?" And especially with their claims that the staggered release was about quality assurance....YES!

And isn't that ironic?

Don't you think?

Not as bad as the fact that I'm getting married today and it's raining....

 

[gridsleep]

I like him. He's silly.

 

[DrOswald]

Well that's taking it a bit far. The ideal relationship between a content creator and a content consumer is a relationship of mutual benefit and respect. Ideally we should be thanking them for creating great games and they should be thanking us for buying them. This promotes a strong dialog between the two parties that will result in a net gain for everyone. If we don't acknowledge and appropriately reward behavior we like (not only with a purchase but by vocalizing our satisfaction, consumer loyalty, and spreading the word) then there is no reason for companies to behave in a way we want. You should be thankful, you should be loyal - but only when a content creator deserves it.

If our relationship with content creators is based purely on financial transaction how can we expect them to do anything but base all their decisions purely on financial gain?

[Edited for content]

I know I sound harsh. But the antics of developers these days has made me very slow to trust.

I can understand that. But if we don't promote good behavior in the instances where there is good behavior (and they do exist) then there will be no reason for developers to ever improve. I am not saying give EA another chance. They have had all the chances they deserve. But there are plenty of developers who are doing right by the consumer. If you want that trend to grow then you need to support those developers. For example, you can damn well expect me to buy whatever game the FTL team makes next, they have earned my loyalty.

We complain that developers are always short sighted, quick to trade in consumer good will for a dollar. But how can we say that if we are unwilling to give trust to even those developers who consistently do right by us? If there is no consumer loyalty, if there is no long term benefit for good business practices, how can we ask them to think in the long term?

Deserved trust and loyalty on both sides is to everyone's benefit. Short sighted selfishness on either side is to everyone's determent.